Today I had to delete two five comments for failing to provide a source. Whenever a commenter uses a quote, mentions an article or posts a press release it must include a URL or other verifiable citation or I will delete it. Simply saying “this is from HRC” or “I read this at SoVo.com” is not sufficient. I expect to see the entire URL, if followed, takes me straight to the source being quoted in one click. That means the dedicated URL for a specific article, press release, and in the case of blog, a permalink.
-Dan
Just wondering, if someone says “I read that xyz representing himself to be a member of HRC” said something, does that count in your prohibition? Or are we to phrase the matter so as to avoid your problem?
I’m a lawyer. I an well qualified to avoid the problem. I know how to frame questions and statements so as to avoid the issue that you have noted. Not everyone who might want to post here, and who might provide interesting information, is a lawyer, however.
BTW, Dan, just to let you know, “source” over the internet means absolutely nothing. I hate to break it to you, but them’s the facts.
hey guys…
Further proof that much of the “ex-gay movement” has VERY LITTLE to do with people who are “battling same-sex attraction”, as they so often like to claim. It’s mostly just a way to oppress gay people:
https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/282005d.asp
Here’s an press release telling anti-gay bigots how to fight against Gay-Straight Alliances in schools by pushing ex-gay material on students and by threatening to start Ex-Gay clubs on campus. You may notice that the point is not to “give SSA kids a choice” but instead it is to deny gay kids any support.
Not sure where to post this, so I’ll put it here.
To raj: I sometimes think you focus too much on the money-making side of the ex-gay movement. But you may have one more item to support your position.
PFOX and Liberty Counsel have come to an agreement with Montgomery Co about the issue over sex education.
Will there be ex-gay propoganda? No.
Will there be “homosexuals are diseased predators”? No.
Well then, what did PFOX and Liberty Counsel get? $36,000
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701635.html
This comment has been deleted because the author did not provide sufficient and exact source citation
If you’re going to delete a comment, the least you can do is use proper grammar while doing so.
It’s your web site. But one thing that you might want to consider is that most people who comment on internet message boards do not have the time to provide links to sources for their comments, especially if the comments are from radio or from things that were read years ago.
I understand your concern: the new regulations from the federal government. But if I have to preface every sentence with an “I believe” or “I think” that will ruin discourse here. The assumption of a comment is that it is “I believe” or “I think.” What more do you want?
Which post did I forget “and” in? I’ve deleted so many comments these past two days I can’t remember where I missed it. Thanks for letting me know though.
As for the necessity of providing citations here, if XGW is to have any credibility there is ABSOLUTELY NO excuse for giving a quote or mentioning an article and failing to provide a source. NONE. I do it in all my posts and hold commenters to the exact same standard.
Dan, I do links like the best of them. Indeed, I’ve been accused on other web sites of over-using links.
But if I want to refer to something I read something 30 years ago (and I have, although not necessarily here) that isn’t on line, how would you want it referred to as? Prefacing each sentence with “I remember,” “I recall,” or “it seems to me” gets to be quite boring.
And, as I’m sure you’re aware, linked pages don’t stay up forever. I went looking for a page yesterday, whose link I had saved, and it wasn’t there. And this was a link to a page about the Kinsey report.
Raj, that’s fairly reasonable actually. If something is really old and you want to mention it but don’t have a source that’s fine, as long as what you’re paraphrasing isn’t too outrageous or unbelievable. Mostly what’s been bothering me is people claiming to quote news stories and press releases less than a week old and not providing a source.
Two puff pieces today in MSNBC. One is on Spitzer’s study which focuses on the results without challenging the very faulty process:
https://msnbc.msn.com/id/8392940/
The other is how Love Won Out is providing a message of hope and healing and is supported by both religious and non-religious researchers:
https://msnbc.msn.com/id/8379954/
While both try to suggest that they are balanced, it is clear that the author of both, Alex Johnson, was trying to paint the anti/ex-gay movement in a favorable light. The focus of the articles – taken together – is that the religious ex-gay groups base their position on the findings of science; and that research supports ex-gay reorientation.
For example:
“NARTH has been mischaracterized by opponents who accuse it of gay-bashing and rejecting any predisposition to homosexuality. It does not contend that homosexuality is solely a sociological or psychological condition, tracking research that supports the supposition that biological factors can play at least a part, especially in the brains of male fetuses.
NARTH says it values diversity and agrees that “people who want to live their lives as ‘gay’ are free to do so.” In a 2000 scholarly paper, Nicolosi and two co-authors counseled that “conversion therapy is not appropriate for all clients,” warning that some who “wish to affirm a gay identity could feel shamed and emotionally hurt if therapists attempted to impose conversion therapy on them.”
By the same token, however, people who want to shed their “unwanted homosexuality” should be encouraged to seek treatment, Nicolosi said in an interview. “It’s not about sex,” he said. “It’s about a sense of self.” ” [italics and bold added]
Johnson is either tragically unaware of the subject about which he is reporting, or is masquarading as a reporter while preaching the ex-gay agenda. Interestingly (but not surprisingly) he was a writer and editor at the Washington Post.
There seems to be developing a pattern. If you start looking closely at the anti/ex-gay reporting, much of it seems to flow back to the Washinton Post and their associated writers and editors. I find that curious.
Dan, I would like people who post things to provide links, because I usually use links on other web sites that I post on. Like the NYTimes gay pride board. But their failure to post a link isn’t necessarily a reason to delete a comment. That was my point. I would like a link. But I can also do a google search to see if there’s anything to what they have posted. Most of us are not dumb. And I do believe that (unless there are other issues that have not been expressed here) you should relax.